Interesting how "CONSPIRACY THEORIES" seems to be the CORE leit motiv of this farcical Trump/Clinton 'race'. It should be more than evident that the Nutwork / PTB clowns are trumping up their efforts to implant (into the general public's psyche) the notion that 'conspiracy theorists' are mentally unstable / paranoid /Alex-Jones-type social misfits - i.e. entirely untrustworthy fools who only deserve public contempt and ridicule. Not that this is any news to us - but the sheer scale of this ongoing, pathetic ploy is now reaching unprecedented heights (or should I say 'lows') as it appears to be a central / core theme of the current presidential campaign comedy.

The below news article propaganda piece is a prime example of this ongoing 'conspiracy-mocking' campaign :

Donald Trump has encouraged his supporters to buy into a fictional world of dark and unfounded conspiracies.

Alex Jones, of the conspiracy theorist Infowars radio show, spoke to a crowd of Trump supporters at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on July 18, 2016. (HILARY SWIFT / NYT)

By DANIEL DALE - Washington BureauWed., Sept. 14, 2016

WASHINGTON—The world saw Hillary Clinton walk out of her daughter’s apartment, waving and smiling, after her pneumonia-related health incident on Sunday.

Dave Wentworth Sr., a 67-year-old retired grocery store manager in California, and Francesca, a 45-year-old who splits her time between New York City and the Philadelphia suburbs, saw something else.

A body double.

“When I saw this thinner woman with less wrinkles come out of the penthouse, I about jumped out of my chair, and shouted to my wife,” Wentworth said Tuesday. “‘This woman is not Hillary!’” “The face, the tip of the nose, the hair,” said Francesca, who wanted her last name omitted to protect her job with a plastic surgeon. “Where did all the lines on her neck go?”

Hillary Clinton leaves her daughter's apartment building on September 11, 2016. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI)

Both of them believe the Clintons have had dozens of people murdered. Francesca also believes the Democratic presidential nominee was being fed answers through a hidden earpiece during a recent forum. Wentworth thinks it’s “possible.”

Their views might be funny if such claims weren’t being embraced and promoted by the Republican presidential nominee.

Explicitly and in barely veiled code, Donald Trump has encouraged his supporters to buy into dark and unfounded allegations about his opponent, the president and the world at large. With the help of right-wing media outlets, he has given an unmistakable blessing to the conspiratorial thinking that has been present in American political life since the Revolution.

“We just have never seen a major-party nominee embrace the fringe element in the way that we have with Trump. That is new,” said Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak. “I think he wants to keep that fringe element motivated and mobilized. I don’t think he’s probably 100 per cent comfortable with it, but I think he likes that they’re stirring things up.”

Trump was the leading proponent of the “birther” theory that falsely holds that Barack Obama was not born in America. His campaign rhetoric — “there’s something going on,” he likes to say — echoes the vague-but-threatening words favoured by nonsense-peddlers the world over.

And he has regularly been more specific: suggesting Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination, calling economic statistics fake, hinting, last week, that Clinton may have disappeared the man who set up her email server. In December, he appeared on the show of Alex Jones, America’s most prominent conspiracy theorist.

“(Jones) has a huge fan base, listenership, readership, but he’s always been regarded as fringe. And now, all of a sudden, he’s been mainstreamed,” said Kathryn Olmsted, a history professor at the University of California, Davis who studies conspiracy theories. “I mean, that’s the really terrifying thing.”

It is not clear that conspiratorial thinking is any more popular in America than it used to be. And Trump, of course, cannot be blamed for the existence of conspiracy theories around Clinton. The false claim that the Clintons are murderous criminal masterminds was the subject of a film in 1994.

Republican strategist Bruce Haynes said the political climate offers a “fertile breeding ground” for conspiracy theories. Trust in institutions is low. The public is unified in believing that the two nominees are liars, Haynes said, and Clinton has given them three decades worth of evidence.

“Does that forgive wild theories from propagating? No. We should all be more responsible. But does it explain why there’s an environment in politics in general, and with her more specifically, where these kinds of theories can take root? Yes, it absolutely does,” he said.

Research by University of Miami professor Joe Uscinski and others suggests conservatives are no more likely to buy into conspiracy theories than liberals. During the George W. Bush presidency, Uscinski noted, conspiracies swirled on the left about former vice-president Dick Cheney and about oil-services firm Halliburton.

And he said that top Democrats have themselves floated conspiracies. Bernie Sanders, he noted, called the entire economic system “rigged” and accused billionaires of “buying elections.” A Clinton ad in August suggested that Trump praises Russian leader Vladimir Putin because of hidden personal ties to Russia.

“Out of one side of her mouth, she was calling him a crazy conspiracy theorist. On the other side of her mouth, she was spewing her own conspiracy theories,” Uscinski said.

Yes Simon , it appears that the strategies for dealing with non-mainstream views has changed and they have ceased to ignore "conspiracy theories" which after all seems to be a term created in the wake of whatever actually happened to JFK. I can't help but think they have further plans for Alex Jones after this election cycle, maybe legitimizing him in an attempt to marginalize independent voices such as Clues Forum. He may be groomed to be the acceptable conspiracy theorist, welcomed in so he can be used to attack the real "freaks" like all of us. They are clever bastards afterall and always thinking a few steps ahead.

MrSinclair wrote:They are clever bastards afterall and always thinking a few steps ahead.

Yeah, dear Sinclair - they may be 'clever' bastards - but their rethoric is beyond fecking stoopid. Just read this sentence - drawn from the above "news article":

"Trump was the leading proponent of the “birther” theory that falsely holds that Barack Obama was not born in America. His campaign rhetoric — “there’s something going on,” he likes to say — echoes the vague-but-threatening words favoured by nonsense-peddlers the world over."

See? Anyone who questions the Nutwork's antics are "Nonsense-peddlers". In other words:

I'm a "NONSENSE-PEDDLER".

You are a NONSENSE PEDDLER"

ALL of us here on this forum are NONSENSE-PEDDLERS".

To be sure, I'm pretty proud of being a "NONSENSE-PEDDLER" - in this utterly non-sensical world of ours.

MrSinclair wrote:They are clever bastards afterall and always thinking a few steps ahead.

Yeah, dear Sinclair - they may be 'clever' bastards - but their rethoric is beyond fecking stoopid. Just read this sentence - drawn from the above "news article":

"Trump was the leading proponent of the “birther” theory that falsely holds that Barack Obama was not born in America. His campaign rhetoric — “there’s something going on,” he likes to say — echoes the vague-but-threatening words favoured by nonsense-peddlers the world over."

See? Anyone who questions the Nutwork's antics are "Nonsense-peddlers". In other words:

I'm a "NONSENSE-PEDDLER".

You are a NONSENSE PEDDLER"

ALL of us here on this forum are NONSENSE-PEDDLERS".

To be sure, I'm pretty proud of being a "NONSENSE-PEDDLER" - in this utterly non-sensical world of ours.

You have to love how they sit there and declare for the world what is true and what is nonsense.

It's clear to me that Alex Jones has been (and continues to) playing his role as the "anti-government conspiracy theorist" since the mid 90s, and has essentially been running interference for the media the whole time.

"Clinton and Janet Reno killed the people in Waco! OKC was a false flag by the Clintons! 9/11 was an inside job by Bush!. . . and on, and on." It's so obvious in hindsight what he's been up to.

So now they trot him out to support the ridiculous idea that Trump is some sort of real outsider who's going to "shake up the establishment". Yeah. . . okay. Sure.

Hillary feinting and having health problems is a brilliant story. It is something everyone can viscerally relate to. We think when we were sick and had to push through something. It also adds a huge amount of drama and tension for her supporters. Her supporters are now hoping she doesn't have another health problem on live television.

And because health problems are something we all can relate to, and understand - normal people can also discuss it at the water cooler.

Sadly, it seems I was wrong about Hillary being dead, unless they have begun utilizing Face2Face software. Considering her "miraculous" recovery in only a few days, It is seeming more likely that her entire illness has been staged in order to phish for falsifiable "conspiracy theories," with some carefully placed body/voice doubles, and 9/11 symbology, as bait.

starfish prime » September 16th, 2016, 7:39 am wrote:Sadly, it seems I was wrong about Hillary being dead, unless they have begun utilizing Face2Face software. Considering her "miraculous" recovery in only a few days, It is seeming more likely that her entire illness has been staged in order to phish for falsifiable "conspiracy theories," with some carefully placed body/voice doubles, and 9/11 symbology, as bait.

Yes. By shifting the focus away from the 9/11 anniversary and their one victim mentioned. Simon should have locked the board for a week or two to keep the garbage out. Especially this thread and the other garbage currently being excavated.

Who in their right mind gives a fuck about Killary Hinton? Chance would be a fine thing that she and the rest of her kind were dead.

Oh isn't that the truth! At this point I have to consider both Clinton and Trump as entities, since who knows what "they" really are? I doubt their political existence depends on the "original authentic person" of either one.

But it would be a mistake on my part to go publicly declare such a thing. The truth is I don't KNOW anything for sure about these creatures.

This "Hillary is dead" stuff just smelled like a set up to me. I don't blame anyone for biting on it, but I would certainly advise more caution in the future. Lord knows I've made that mistake before.

They (PTB- for lack of a better reference) have entered a period of managing/controlling/leading "the conspiracy theorists" (and the public's perception of such) at an intensity level that would be shocking to me, if I were still shockable. That was plain to see when "Hillary" named "Alex Jones" at the DNC and specifically addressed Sandy Hook. It's just a higher profile NASA-like DBA attempt.

I always appreciate your (Brianv) blunt force around here. Truly. It's refreshing in this overly PC environment I find myself in these days.

I am positive beyond any measure of doubt that every one of these archetypes paraded before us is fake, what difference does it make whose actual body it is behind the facade?

The saddest thing I have had the misfortune of witnessing in my now 56 years on this planet, if you will, is the unremitting naivete demonstrated by those whom I know and care for in regard to the infotainment media/politics circus. I sometimes genuinely feel I could make their eyes wide with amazement by pulling a coin from behind their collective ears.

As much as I appreciate the support and grounding that I find by frequently visiting Clues Forum, I am concerned that the dark Nietzche media abyss is staring back at me as I allow myself to be exposed to it, research or not.

The lines below were clipped from an op ed, courtesy of the "newspaper of record" of the US:

One of the mental traps that we all fall into, journalists included, is to perceive politics through narratives.

President Gerald Ford had been a star football player, yet somehow we in the media developed a narrative of him as a klutz — so that every time he stumbled, a clip was on the evening news. Likewise, we in the media wrongly portrayed President Jimmy Carter as a bumbling lightweight, even as he tackled the toughest challenges, from recognizing China to returning the Panama Canal.

Narrative is a trap? The whole shebang is nothing but narrative. "...yet somehow we in the media developed a narrative...." How did we do that I wonder? Perhaps it was brought to One Hour Photo for development and surprise, surprise!

Aside from the given frame of reference that takes as a given importance (other than the only important thing that is consistently ignored, namely that we are forced to participate via plunder) be ascribed to what happens in areas that are culturally and geographically unrelated to others, as well as the "great man" version of history that they perpetually blather on about, is the lack of cogency demonstrated by the writer.

At least the christian apologetics were tasked with rationalizing the mysterious and omniscient. It's a bit disingenuous to be apologizing for the things you are writing while you are writing them.

I don't know how much of a snake has to be consumed by itself before it expires. From my perspective we are already at the point where the endeavors of journalists so-called make the first random monkey of the one hundred who sat at keyboards look like Shakespeare.

I am unwilling to abandon the clarity I get to experience here on a regular basis, but from now on when I feel the need to absorb some fiction, I will at least bother to enjoy the prose of those who are actually good at it.

Farcevalue - An analogy I have is imagine a camera followed you around for the last 10 years. And during those 10 years there was 7 times you got really angry. The television media could keep replaying those 7 rages, looping them whenever they mention your name. To a viewer at home all they know about you is what they have seen on television. So you would look like a 'madman'.

That article is just lunacy, which makes it somewhat funny/entertaining.. one annoying thing if you were in media is changing the narrative is hard. If I find a new clip of you losing your temper, I know its going to be a hit when I put it on the news program tonight.

Something was off with Hill in last night’s “debate.” Her handlers might want to up her Ritalin dosage. Nothing complements a blood red pantsuit better than (her trademark) dilated pupils.

MrSinclair » September 13th, 2016, 4:43 pm wrote:Either dead or incapacitated. Her campaign will be a remake of the Weekend at Bernies movie from here on in. Lots of sunglasses and waving from a distance along with computer generated phone interviews and a cancellation of the debates. As political campaigns are business as usual and a charade virtually all of the time I really hope things have gotten beyond control and something unplanned will force itself into the game.

I think her partner in crime is in virtual agreement with you, MrSinclair.

Thank you for the wonderful welcome, the waving flag, the terrific shirts. I want one of those shirts before I leave. At least shirts have not become virtual; you can actually have one of them. [Laughter]

I want to say to the Taoiseach how very grateful I am for his leadership and friendship. But I must say that I was somewhat ambivalent when we were up here giving our virtual signatures. Do you have any idea how much time I spend every day signing my name? I'm going to feel utterly useless if I can't do that anymore. [Laughter] By the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions; you just sign your name. [Laughter] You may find you can get away with virtual Presidents, virtual Prime Ministers, virtual everything. Just stick a little card in and get the predictable response.

Here's the weird feeling coming from this campaign: on one hand, the certainty that the whole Trump-Clinton theater is nothing more than a distraction, a form of entertainment, and a way to inject the public with political ideas that, by being exaggerated ("the wall" "the gun grabbing") end up opening a way for the opposite idea.

On the other hand, the puzzling role of "Wikileaks", which is certainly fake and part of the manipulation, yet the only purpose I could ascribe to it would be that of creating in the public conscience a sort of awareness for online vulnerability, in order to justify future tightening of surveillance? Not much perhaps. Or is it really just a prop to create suspense?

And about wikileaks: I find it kind of strange that every week the media announces that new emails have been published, but when I go to wikileaks.org to check the website appears to be the same as ever, and keeps giving the date of October 7th for the Podesta "leak", with nothing appearing in the news. Yes the "new emails" are there, but only appear if you search for something that brings them up. It does seem a deliberately unappealing and inconvenient way of presenting information, as if this stuff didn't want to be read, and a way to give a hard time to journalists who are supposed (I guess) to query the search on wikileaks constantly with lame keywords like "Obama" until something new comes up.